peckhamboy

Burbage Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Even if you ignore the games' contribution to the > upsurge in sporting participation, the frankly > embarrassing proliferation of playing fields and > the clear benefits to public health, we've got a > nearly new shopping centre within a day's walk, a > cable-car relieving pressure on parts of the DLR > and an upgrade to our traffic network that will, > finally, deliver what the congestion charge once > promised. This is tongue in cheek, right?

"even going as far as denying there is not a parking problem around East Dulwich Train Station" Nice use of the double negative, Bazza. Just trying to cover all the bases, eh? Seriously, what a pillock.

National Rail's live departure boards are pretty useful as well - National Rail

Put it in a brown paper bag on her doorstep, light the bag, ring the bell and run off to watch from a safe distance as she opens the door and instinctively stamps on the bag to put the flames out. Ideally, film it and post it on here for us all to enjoy.

maxxi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > peckhamboy Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > As a pedestrian, it's a massive detour at > > present if, for example, you wanted to visit > the > > deli and green and blue using pedestrian > > crossings. > > Apologies - you obviously have very, VERY little > legs. Yes I do. And you obviously think it's funny or clever to mock the disabled. I can imagine you chuckling away whilst you typed that, your tiny little brain lost in a paroxysm of mirth about just how unbelievably witty you are. No doubt your parents are very, very proud.

Yes. As a pedestrian, it's a massive detour at present if, for example, you wanted to visit the deli and green and blue using pedestrian crossings. As a driver, I would much rather have a couple of extra crossings to deal with than have to deal with idiots running out between parked cars to try to catch a bus. It's pretty rare that, between traffic density, buses pulling out, and pedestrians crossing at inappropriate places, it's ever safe or even possible to get past 20mph along there anyway. What's the hurry? I'm happy to take 30 seconds longer on the drive in return for it being a much better place to be out and about on foot.

I think the pinch points are to narrow the road for pedestrians to cross, but I might be wrong. The raised treatment there suggests we may be lucky enough to have a few more of Mr Barber's beloved puffin crossings.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Definitely OverGran :) Surely it should be WunderGran?

You can find out what the chopper's up to here - apparently this morning it was searching Peckham Rye Park for a missing 4 year old

ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peckhamboy - no one is forcing you read or > contribute to this thread are they ? What right > have you to say what is and isn't discussed ? > As much right as you have to criticise me for saying it. However, I made no attempt to control what is or isn't discussed - merely suggested you take it up offline if you're that bothered about what Penguin68 thinks of one comment made by another poster. This thread has had a long and hard life and should be allowed the right to die in peace.

Agree. Is the council's policy to manage/reduce car use or just to make money? If the former, we need viable alternatives. If the latter, we need a new council.

Gang activity

Do we really need an inquest on this? I think it fair to say that although there were two camps on the issue, views within those camps can vary widely. Gsirett and others did a great job of raising the profile of this council initiative and bringing it to the attention of people affected by it (whether favourably or unfavourably). Both camps would probably agree that the council should have made a better fist of that in the first place. Equally, he and others spent a lot of time investigating the truth behind the 'facts' presented by the council and counterbalancing the horribly skewed consultation document. It was a highly contentious issue and some of the debate became quite personal against James Barber and other lib-dem councillors. That was wrong and mostly those concerned have conceded that. However, it has died down now in any case, and there is a more constructive thread on parking issues in its place. Let's just leave this one to die now and stop raking over the embers - or take it offline if you really need to know exactly where gsirett and Pingu are aligned and where they disagree.

Yes please, extend the congestion zone. It may cost more than a cpz but then I could drive to work in the city without paying the congestion charge. Of course, we'd probably then buy a second car so my wife could drive to the shops in lordship lane during the day.

All comments on that solution to be addressed to Huguenot, Ivory Tower, Singapore. In the meantime, perhaps the rest of the world can be left to come up with some practical solutions that might have a hope in hell of actually being implemented and actually working.

Interesting point about electric cars - they're no use for longer journeys, so actually a lot of people who buy one have it in addition to a petrol car, increasing demand for spaces on the roads.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Routing traffic round towards > Dulwich hospital site where some land could be > used to provide low cost parking permits for > dulwich businesses with multiple car use (estate > agents) and commuters. > Nice idea but I can't see it working on a voluntary basis. Estate agents use their cars to show people round properties and I can't see the likes of Bushells and Foxtons making prospective clients walk from LL up to the old hospital in order to drive back to see a house on Landells Road for example. And unfortunately, a CPZ is probably the only non-voluntary way to make people park further away... That said, do Foxtons really need 10+ cars? The problem is that they provide the cars as an employee perk so it would require a change to their business model to reduce car use, but I believe Foxtons needed a change of use for that building so it was incredibly short-sighted of the council to allow Foxtons in without limiting car parking as part of the consent conditions.

James, thanks for coming back on here this morning - many would understand if you hadn't. Re Zenoria though, they kind of missed their chance if they didn't repsond to the consultation. And if they did, then clearly they were in the minority for that street, even if they were vocal last night. IMO, any problems with parking are too small and localised to be appropriate for a CPZ. Maybe in a few years' time, there might be better arguments but for now it's wrong solution, wrong place. As I've said many times, and Penguin has again above, there is simply insufficient information about the root causes of any problems. And how much did it cost to get the "parking survey" done? If you ever need someone in the future to spend a day or two guessing how many cars there are and which ones belong to residents, just ask me instead - I promise to undercut them by 50%. Why not set up a residents working party, with representatives from every street in the area, to gather information and come up with some community based proposals that actually have wide support? One way streets might help - I know you've dismissed them on the grounds of cyclist convenience but firstly, no cyclist pays any attention to one way streets and second, you could make a cycle contra-flow as you are doing on Copleston and Oglander. If it's good enough there why wouldn't it be good enough here? A lot of people view your voting last night as representative of a blinkered anti-car agenda, commitment to a pet project and completely counter to logic and democracy. I share those views to an extent, although I suspect you also had made commitments to a number of pro-CPZ residents that you felt you had to keep as well as wanting to keep true to party policy. I don't think there is much point going on about it though - well done for showing you continue to be committed to engagement through the forum, and I hope you can now re-focus on the community rather than policy and work for the greater good not just a vocal minority who happen to share your views on cars.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you all stop talking politics and other > B??$s > > It?s obvious you have NO solution for the actual > problems. > > So you talk nonsense? It's obvious that you are in a minority in thinking the proposed cpz was the solution. I dare say that for those within the zone who are happy to pay the fee and live with the crap that comes with a cpz, it may have made it easier for you to park. But the price of that on a much larger area meant it would create more issues than it solved. Now that the idea seems dead in the water, how about everyone tries to look to alternatives rather than just continuing the old arguments?

It is. But it would surely be career suicide to approve a CPZ in the face of a 65% resident opposition, and majority votes against by the two community councils representing the affected area (including the vote of his own party leader who reputedly said it would be undemocratic to impose a CPZ). If he is still thinking of approving it, maybe he should ask Colin Barrow for his thoughts...

So what you're saying is that the less well-off shouldn't own a car in the first place if they can't afford to pay for costs they had no way of knowing would be imposed on them? The problem though is that just as cars are a privilege not a right, so a permit is an option not an obligation. Meaning that those who can't or won't pay (and let's face it, if a CPZ is introduced over just 3 streets, why would you pay?) can choose to park just outside the zone.

Except that the disabled are actually entitled to have a disabled bay outside their house, so the cpz can't be aimed at them. Of course, we could always have dedicated bays for families and the elderly. But imagine the outcry. Be honest - the people asking for a cpz are doing so for themselves, not out of altruism for the young, elderly or disabled. Some of them may fall into one or more of those categories. Chances are that many of those opposing a cpz also do. Look at it another way - bringing in a cpz on such a small scale will inevitably have a massive knock-on effect. And who will suffer most? Young families, the elderly and the disabled. Why would you support a scheme that victimises these types of people?

James, in order to have a clear solution, is it not necessary to have a clear understanding of the problem? The only 'problem' that a CPZ might solve would be all-day commuter (by which I mean real commuter) parking but it is far from clear to what extent that is actually a factor here. And the risible survey conducted on behalf of the council does not provide answers - it provides a finger in the air guess as to how many cars might not belong to residents but is certainly not reliably accurate and does not distinguish (as many have pointed out) between the many different categories of non-resident. If the problem is in fact primarily that a small number of streets are over-subscribed by resident demand (and this theory is certainly not disproven by the figures available and the voting pattern), then the domino effect is in fact the only way in which a CPZ provides a 'solution', and becomes the purpose rather than the effect. The only advantage for residents within the zone therefore is that it forces those who can't or won't find the money for a permit to park outside the zone, freeing up spaces for those who can and will. And that, in a nutshell, is why I am so opposed to this particular CPZ. The original outline would have left several streets within a 4-5 minute walk of the station so was no deterrent to commuters - meaning that the CPZ would not achieve its stated aim. The new options were not consulted on (at best the implication was that a couple of streets might be left out if significantly opposed, not that only a couple of streets would be included if that was the only support the council could scrape together). A 2 or 3 road CPZ is frankly barmy and inconsistent with the original premise for introducing one. A 7 road CPZ where 5 of the 7 roads voted against a CPZ makes a mockery of the consultation. I have said before - the only realistic option is to make the suggested improvements under Option 2, and conduct a more detailed analysis of causes of any problems in order to have a proper solution. For example, if parking problems in Tintagel Crescent are down to casual shoppers and school traffic, making it one way or even a dead end could help reduce that, and working with the school to encourage walking, lift-sharing and use of public transport by staff and parents would do more than a CPZ that doesn't apply at drop-off or pick-up times.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James > > I have had a look at the detailed numbers from the > consultation. I have calculated the percentage of > residents and businesses in each of the proposed > cpz areas that are in favour. > > > 3. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent Grove only > (62% of residents in favour) > 4. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, > Jarvis, Melbourn, Oxonian,Tintagel, Zenoria (54% > of residents in favour) > 5. Experimental one hour CPZ in Derwent, Elsie, > Tintagel (57% of residents in favour) > > Obviously the percentage number in favour is > higher if you add in the (what if the neighbouring > street had a cpz option) favourables, but i have > not done this, so 54, 57 and 62% favourables are > the lowest end of the scale. I would not want to > be accused of being biased. > > This is a clear majority of zone residents and > businesses in favour of any one of these options. > Interestingly even some of the posters who are > very dubious of the benefits of a CPZ are in > favour of a trial period. There is just a lack of > firm reassurance that it could be reversed if > found to be non productive. > > The no campaign is going to be very vocal but I > would urge you to represent the clear democratic > wishes of this Derwent centred area. Are you serious? On one hand you argue for a Derwent only CPZ because of a majority in that street (ie each street should individually have its own choice), and on the other hand you are prepared to shoehorn in 5 streets that were majority against the CPZ (on the basis of an overall majority across that entire area). Which is it? Do we take a majority view across an area - in which case the 60 something percent in the consulted area would seem to be significant - or do we take it on a street by street basis, in which case there are two one road CPZs? You can't have it both ways and your figures above are frankly just the very "spin" you are so quick to accuse others of.

fazer71 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All I care about is > > > That I can park my cars 5 > seconds walk from my front door?? > > I couldn?t give a toss about other residents. > > And that is a FACT There you go Fazer - i fixed your message for you :))